Interesting 1908-14 Navy
 

This is an interesting 1908/Model 1914 Navy.

http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/Vie...?Item=66772359

I say that its interesting because this navy Luger has a short frame, no chamber date and navy military markings. All the Model 1914's had short frames. But I am under the impression that ALL navy military 1908's had long frames. The 1908 commercials could go either way. But this is not a commercial navy because of the navy proof marks on the left side of the receiver. Comments anyone?
Big Norm :confused:

Boyoboy, there's lots here to ponder.

Take a close look at the profile characteristics of the rear sight and comment. Note that there is no picture which included the rear toggle pin.

If I was a suspicious sort, I might find that the only picture which is terminally out-of-focus being the receiver proofs cause for concern.

--Dwight

Gadzooks guys! Don't you all recognize the forward canted rear sight? This is a Kontos rework "special" the likes of which are turning up on various auction sites recently. Beware, as even the folks in northern Minnesota have recognized the wrong canted rear sight and have "corrected" this flaw on more recent fraudulent issue Navies.

I have a pictorial comparision of the repro navy toogle vs the original navy toggle on my desktop, but I can't figure out how to put in a forum thread. Ron Wood did a fine pictorial description (I did a forum search on Navy Toogle and Ron Wood), but no pictures came out. Just those little question mark thingys.
Big Norm

According to my desk top picture, the toggle knob looks fine, but the serrations on the rabbit ears look as short as Ron Woods description of a repro.
Big Norm

Look at the angle of the back of the sight. It looks like it slopes forward, not back. The second photo is a comparison Ron Wood made of another repro and my 1906 Navy sight. Look where Ron pointed out the contour. Both the original and repro angle slope back.

http://forum.lugerforum.com/lfupload/fake_navy.jpg

http://forum.lugerforum.com/lfupload...pare_copy3.jpg

Tracyp,
How did you ever post those pictures that Ron Wood posted a few years ago? I saved those pictures and have been trying to post them on this thread for a couple of hours. I just finally gave up and e-mailed Tinker to post them for me. Maybe its because I saved it as a .jpg to my desk top?

I feel sorry for the guy who passed the reserve price @$3500. I hope that he can cancel his bid. I hope that he is on this forum and reading whats being said. I know that, with me, this gun just did not add up.
Big Norm :(

Norm,

I found the previous topic that had the picture in it, copied it to my local PC, uploaded it to the forum, then posted the link into the message. The format of the file (jpg, bmp, etc.) doesn't matter.

Look who the bidder is, he's bought all kinds of bogus stuff for big bucks.


Tracy

Tracy,
I function on my Mac but I am not a whizbang. So I have a copy of the pictures that you posted sitting on my desk top. Everytime I tried to drag it to my forum post, I couldn't do it. Its driving me nuts. I am going to try again at the bottom of this post just for the heck of it.
Big Norm
navy_sight_comp_dup.jpg

See, it didn't work. Norm :grr:

you can drag a picture in windows, mac, etc., only on YOUR machine. All other desktops / servers you ahve to upload the info. Thus the upload link upper right and the one if you choose ADD REPLY.....



Ed

Norm,

I think trying to drag it to the forum is the problem. First you need to upload it to the LugerForum server. Copy the address after it's completed. See upload photos. Then click on "Add Reply" in the forum. Above "Your Reply" you will see "vB Code". To the right, click on IMG. A popup will then be displayed to insert the http address. Insert http address of where you uploaded the photo to the LugerForum.

Like everything else, it's easy after you've done it.

Tracy

[url]http://forum.lugerforum.com/lfupload/navy_sight_comp_dup_copy1.jpg[/url

Ok, I got something that I can click on to get my picture, but I want the picture to show. So what did I do wrong?
Big Norm

http://http://forum.lugerforum.com/l..._dup_copy1.jpg

Ok, I got a question thingy. I don't believe that thats progress. Heck, I my going to bed and I'll try again tomorrow.
Big Norm Abnormal

Norm,

Your almost there. Replace both url with IMG, and your missing the bracket at the end. This is what you get

http://forum.lugerforum.com/lfupload..._dup_copy1.jpg

"Fatboy11" has been busy buying on G-B.

Here is an example of a 9 mm carbine M1902 :

http://luger.gunboards.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=10891

Gunbroker actively investigates and curtails fraud on their auctions. I just got them to end a Swiss Luger auction that had its description copied from a sale listing by CMR International Classic Firearms. I urge my fellow Lugerforum members to do likewise in similar cases. The reputation of our community rests and reflects on each and every one of us.

Excellent work, Michael...!!!

I wondered about this G-B's seller's NR (rating) and the fact that he does not appear to reply to requests for larger jpeg files before I would place a bid.

CMR asking $ 2450 USD and the guy on G-B letting it go for $ 1500 now makes sense as well.

I noticed he had a buyer on G-B...

http://www.cmrfirearms.com/shop/prod...roducts_id=149

Thank you for your kind words, Pete. Thanks to contributors of your caliber, this is by far the best specialty gun forum around. I only wish that its like could be created for my hobbyhorse, Swiss handguns. (Nudge Nudge)

I have reported the auction at issue in this thread to the Gunbroker fraud team, referring them to this thread. Stay tuned for further updates.

update
 

On 3/2/2007 at 9:30:53 PM Eastern Time, GBSupport1012 wrote to me:
We have confronted the seller about it. Thanks for the heads up.

update
 

On 3/2/2007 at 9:30:53 PM Eastern Time, GBSupport1012 wrote to me:
We have confronted the seller about it. Thanks for the heads up.

You guys are much better at this than I am, so correct me if I am wrong:
The sear is unrelieved so production should be pre 1915/16 but the rear frame well looks reinforced post 1916 so the upper and lower receivers donâ??t match.
Does the machining of the rear frame well look like DWM to you guys? More like Mauser to me?
Look at the close up of the barrel ringâ??thatâ??s the widest one I have ever seen. (barrel replacement?)
The barrel coloring is different than the receiver; the coloring of the rust bluing is too black for an Imperial gun. The suffix seems too low on the receiverâ??but I could be wrong.

I would love to buy a 1914 Navy someday but it scares me to death, I am so paranoid I doubt I would ever bid on one based on pictures alone!

Vern

Vern,
good points. I'll check them out as soon as I finish looking over whats on this forum. But seriously, enough has been written here to warn people about this gun. But I see that the gun is selling, at this point, for $4150 and still going. Very disappointing to me. We have to get more people to know about this and Jan Stills forums. This sale is just going to encourage more wackos to get involved in re-assembling or altering expensive Lugers.
Big Norm

Sorry, didnâ??t mean to beat a dead horse to death; I am still learning and am trying very hard not to get caught up into a very bad deal.

Vern

Vern,
its hard to comment on the points that you made because the photography of this gun is so very poor. The barrel does appear to be more black that the customary beautiful blue/blue that you would find on an Imperial Luger. But the seller would just come back and say thats because of the lighting. Sometimes the only way to tell is to take the gun outside in the sun light and compare to a known original Imperial bluing. Thats where the coloring would really stand out.

The front sight looks to be the sight that should be on a navy Luger. The barrel ring in picture 9 appears to be flush to the frame. My original navies show a step should be there. But again, we are dealing with bad photography.

I am not proficient on Mauser frames except that the rabbit ears would have the characteristic "Mauser hump" on the back. I don't see it on this gun.

Much has been made of the rear sight on this thread. I don't think that we can say much about it beause that area was over exposed by the camera and the camera angle may distort the point that others were trying to make. The pictures of a repro vs an original on this thread can greatly help the buyer, but we really can't say from the pictures that the seller supplied. But the toggle knobs look original.

I wanted to say something about the chamber where the date normally would be. The sellers pictures look like a date may have been filed off. But I looked at a couple of my navies and that area is a bit rough on them too. Physical examination would be necessary.

What this is getting down to is what I wrote in my start-up post, the long frame vs the short frame and the appropriate application on the navy proof marks vs commercial proof marks. Even the proof marks can't be commented on because they have been filled in with white lacquered pencil. Plus, the photography thingy. When the buyer gets this gun, he will have to physically examine this gun with an experienced Luger guy looking over his shoulders. He will have three days to physically examine this gun and get his money back, less S&H. Personally, I have enough doubts about this gun to not touch it. One mistake is one too many. Stay tuned, you just may find this gun back on the market.
Big Norm

P.S. Stay tuned, to this thread. I'll be using it to experimentally try to put pictures here. I discovered lots of things that I could do while I was fooling around the first time. But it was 3AM and I was getting foggy brained.